Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger book) was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 19, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Move. I will also convert Introduction to Metaphysics to a disambiguation page per the discussion; as always if one article is identified as the primary topic it can be moved to the base name. Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
An Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) →
Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) – This is the correct English title of the book; see
this link --Relisted.
Armbrust
The Homunculus 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
81.83.137.205 (
talk)
20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Where does the "indelibly fascist" quote come from!?
How is metaphysics understood by the lecture . For it is noted that "The title of the course is thus deliberately ambiguous "(21). How is the fundamental question derived to its singular priority.... Διοτιμα ( talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like an interesting writer of some merit, but it's not a name one encounters much in bibliographies concerning Heidegger. I don't doubt the quote from him is accurate and reasonable, but he's really not the "go-to" guy one would want. Moreover the "Nazi character" of the book isn't widely seen (so far as I know) as its primary or most significant aspect.
Badiacrushed ( talk) 22:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Certainly this work is famed for its "inner truth and greatness" quote. The article's lead says the book is "widely regarded as fascist in character" or something like that.
Perhaps this assertion is true, but there's no citation. Young's quote pertains to his personal view, rather than a perceived consensus. Certainly the assertion has been made regarding Heidegger's work as a whole, and it's been quite "widely" entertained. But not to say "accepted" or "widely regarded" as such. It's a controversy.
Irrelevant example: Aspects of the Bible are humorous in character." This is arguably a true statement. Whole books, in fact have been published on this. "The Bible is humorous in character." This would probably be "widely regarded" as a misleading and basically false statement. But I have no sources. Some, no doubt, regard the Bible as a joke.
SO really, considered from a reader's (myself) point of view, this article is a failure. I've spent more than a year reading various works by and about Heidegger. IM might go on my reading list. I came here hoping for information that would be helpful in a decision.
Yes, of course we all know about H's Nazi dealings and his generally reactionary world view.
But no, simply dismissing IM as "basically fascist" doesn't offer, in itself, worthy insight for readers. Badiacrushed ( talk) 18:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Young's quote pertains to his personal view, rather than a perceived consensus.
Young's personal view is at page 110. As he notes,“the critics of Heidegger's philosophical works of the early thirties, both friendly and hostile, I shall suggest , are all wrong”. As he further notes, “none of these, I shall argue, amount to totalitarianism [and] do not constitute fascism”.
Young's view is here irrelevant. The claim was that there is a widely shared view that the character (and not content ) of the book can be regarded as fascistic. This does not question the views veracity but mentions its existence .
The acknowledgement of the existence of such views is qualitatively different form simply dismissing IM as "basically fascist". This in turn would be a worthy insight for readers ; it informs, contextualizes and shapes their reading : for once, it reflects at what Heidegger himself called Grundstimmung of the work.
Placed in context the quote is an implication of Heidegger’s 1930s corpus . It is a reflection of the view held by Wolin, Herrbamas (who is mentioned in the translator’s introduction to Im) and Sheehan to name a few. Διοτιμα ( talk) 07:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yah not sure about above chatter, but I definitely made a mistake about Young's comment. Point is nonetheless, he's a comparatively obscure analyst. Not necessarily a bad one, but obscure.
The 2001 book "A Companion to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics," published by Yale University, has 13 chapters and 13 authors (not Young), only four of which seem to concern politics. I don't believe the fairly long introduction characterize IM as "fascist." Of course this proves nothing -- yet it may point away from idea that there's is a consensus about the book's "fascist character." I don't know, but am skeptical. Badiacrushed ( talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, indeed, perhaps you're right. In that this is a "talk page," it's reasonable for me to merely point out the fact of Young's relative obscurity among Heidegger analysts. I say this on the basis of looking at a half-dozen bibliographies in which Young's works aren't prominent. It's unimportant that you're unaware of this, or deem it irrelevant.
Of course, I'm sure Young's work is of valid interest, and have not questioned Young as a "reliable source" as normally defined at Wikipedia. If you feel that's the "only relevant issue," then you may be ill-equipped to address the larger question -- or perhaps you're right. I simply don't know.
Problem is, the lede says, or implies, that IM (along with B&T) sums up H's views, and that these are of a "fascist" character. I'm unconvinced that as a matter of consensus among analysts, that this is a reasonable summation, despite the use of a "reliable source." Badiacrushed ( talk) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
True, but unfortunately the only character to which the lede refers is "fascist." One could enumerate an infinite number of things that the lede DOESN'T say. Obviously no point in that.
The lede really only says two things: that H. believed IM and B&T summarize his views on ontology (the only topic H dealt with), and that IM is "widely regarded" as fascist in character. That's all.
"Widely regarded" suggests to the ordinary reader, consensus, unless I'm mistaken.
A word search for the term "fascist" of the Stanford EP entry on Heidegger turns up nothing. Same for IE of P. Interestingly, the Stanford article DOES cite J. Young (though many other analysts are more heavily cited).
I'd have thought that if H's ontology were seen by consensus as "fascist in character," then this view, or at least the term, would turn up in those sources.
But I am quite uncertain about this. Badiacrushed ( talk) 02:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A preference to stay closely as possible to the original source helps to prevent any "hermeneutical chicanery”. Compared to the original source, one can easily see that the "inner truth and greatness" phrase is nothing but tendentious cherry picking and decontextualisation of the text.
1.For starters it is a "in medias res" quotation: quoting only the middle part of the sentence to present the idea that it is the introductory portion. It omits (or better yet is an outright censorship and distortion of) the introductory part that notes " In particular,what is peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism, but which has not the least to do with" and presents only the peacock term the "inner truth and greatness". This creates the illusion that it is an outright claim about NSDAP and not a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such.
2.The tail end of the quote ("is fishing in these troubled waters of "values" and "totalities") is, in an utterly unacceptable outright act of censorship and distortion also not included. This in turn not only "buries the lede" but also deliberately decontextualises the quote to seem as an outright praise of Nazism rather than a polemical discussion of the notion of values and totalities that encompasses a critique of nazism as an example.
3.It ignores the problematic nature of the infixed scholia( "namely, the encounter between global technology and modern humanity") that is a sure discredit that the quote is a praise of nazism rather than an allusion to Heidegger's analysis of modern technology.
4. The phrase as it stands cannot be used to draw the conclusion that has been widely regarded as fascist in character; for it does so at the great and deep expense of obfuscation and misinformation.
5. Fascism (just as all isms) itself is a rather broadly multifaceted and an overdetermined phrase to bare any semantic relevance on itself ( a perfect example being Orwell's essay what is fascism?).One has to point specific parts of the text that reflect specific parts of a clearly defined notion of fascism and not a vague "inner truth" catchphrase. This would be done properly in the reception part and not in the introduction. But still,one has to justify why only the middle half of "inner truth and greatness" quote is picked over the other 44 words that argue contrary to the conclusion derived from it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes; if you refer to the "inner truth and greatness" of something, that's praise - But only and only if the surrounding context argues to this effect. Can you show that? Is the surrounding context in line with your praise claim?
To make it easy, can you provide further context to the phrase that would not only provide the fascist connections that you claim to exist but also offer specific praises of nazism that are given than sticking to the decontextualised "inner truth and greatness" phrase? The point to be made is that it is misleading to use the phrase as it is presented since it hides not only the context but derives a problematic conclusion that is not supported by the full contents of the sentence.What in specific seems praiseworthy about nazism in the quote that speaks of a "peddled philosophy of National Socialism, that has not the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement ?!!
The quote distinguishes between the "peddled philosophy of National Socialism and an alluded other philosophy of National Socialism(that is not talked about in the quote). Which "nazism" are you referring to when you claim that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism". For it is obvious the peddled one is not being praised for " fishing in these troubled waters of "values" and "totalities" " - let alone not being able in " the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement" .Your claim would have to carefully, not only distinguish the two philosophies but also be qualified to reflect that the praise is not leveled at nazism as it is but to the alluded one. But this is in no way a praise of nazism. What is praised is nazism as conceptualised in Heidegger's head which is already not the nazism of crude race biologism ( which is what was intended).
Your inner truth phrase is terribly misleading for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring and thus censoring the rest of the quote that shows what heidegger is praising as Nazism is an eccentric conception of it that is at variance with general nazism and is rather a critique of it that led him to dig up trenches in 1944 in the upper Rhine. Praytell, Which nazism is Heidegger praising? Διοτιμα ( talk) 03:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you see anyone agreeing with your views? Do you think it is at all likely that anyone is going to agree with them?
Answer: Yes!!!?
Christian lewalter seconded by Heidegger himself (See the introduction to EM at xvi)
Julian young (whom you use to as a source does) at page 110 of the quoted book. Hans Sluga's essay in " A Companion to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics" at page 208. He interprets the sentence in question as a four pronged polemical aimed at differing groups. As noted in the prior argument, the quotation was "a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such." Sluga notes that " Heidegger must have wanted to underscore his attack on the theory of values . . . [in 1935 and also in1953] when he [let the quote stand in the text] in order to renew his critique of the philosophy of value and the political appeal to it. For the theory of value was once again in vogue in Germany in 1953" The four pronged polemical claim of Sluga is in line with the distinction of the two philosophies noted above.
As he notes that the sentence made four polemical claims (and not parises)
1. National Socialism has an inner truth and greatness
2. That this must be distinguished from its outer and possibly flawed manifestation.
3. That the speaker himself possesses a unique insight into the inner truth of the movement (this is what is praised)
4. National socialism cannot be grounded in a theory of value and organic unity (page 208)
This is a pure philosophical polemic rather than praises. Were it a praise it would be of what Heidegger conceived to be nazism and not what was nazism in 1935. The polemics, Sluga notes were aimed at
1. Opponents of national socialism
2. Petty , bureaucratic party penpushers
3.Party ideologues
4.Value philosophers
if you imagine that I am interested in debating Heidegger with you, you are sorely mistaken. My interest is to discuss how to improve the article by showing that Your inner truth phrase is terribly misleading; for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring the broader context in which it lays, thus, allowing you to draw a problematic conclusion that is contradicted by the larger context. This is not a general discussion or chit-chat, but pointing out that a specific phrase and the conclusion it draws in the article is at variance with the larger context from which it was plucked. your language, not mine, claims that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism" . It claims that as a matter of course a fascist character can be proved from the quote. Again, in your language, not mine, can you provide further context to the phrase that would not only provide the fascist connections that you claim to exist but also offer specific praises of nazism that are given than sticking to the decontextualised "inner truth and greatness" phrase?This, presumably is a good enough use of your time or mine; to ask you to defend or explain Which "nazism" are you referring to when you claim that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism".
Btw Censorship is not limited to removal, it includes tendentious omission and inclusion (which is what the phrase would be if it did not give satisfactory reasons as to why they are done) 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Διοτιμα ( talk)
Claim: The sentence in question is not an attempt to make an argument or to deduce anything.
Answer: What is it then?
If the sentence is not somehow arguing that the work is "fascist" because of its reference to the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism, then there would be no problem taking the phrase out .
If that is your assumption, then it would have the same semantic value if amended to read thus : The work, in which Heidegger refers to "being and becoming", has been widely regarded as fascist in character" Or better yet, it can be emended to read "The work has been widely regarded as fascist in character" without losing any of its meaning and intention.
A problem arises only when the fascist character is predicted on the inner truth phrase .
There is no denial that some people do not consider, while some do consider the book to be fascist in character. All that has been pointed is that the phrase "inner truth" as is decontextualised an tendentiously placed cannot be used to ground that consideration. If it is not grounding it then there would be no problem plucking it out.
Claim: it appears as though you are trying to have an argument about the proper interpretation of Heidegger's work.
Answer: All that has been done ( just like with the reference to the preface to Being and time and other edits ) is point out the simple fact that the matter as quoted is at variance with the original text. You don't have to interpret anything ; but do a simple comparison with the text to make such foolish accusations about tendentious misrepresentation of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The same criterion offered above still stands.
If the sentence is a fact, then it makes two factual claims:
1.The work refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism.
2. The work has been widely regarded by some as fascist in character.
Fact 1(since its the inner truth phrase) can be proved by EM or Julian's: which ultimately depends on EM (for it claims in Em there is such a phrase) . Fact 2 ( which is nothing but the claim that there exist a group of people who consider EM thus) can only be proved by Julian's and not EM which does not even mention the word fascist. Julian, to prove fact 2 will have to name the people who deem EM thus. They in turn will have to allude to specific parts of EM that they deem fascist in character.
The two are unrelated facts. Fact one can be proved by just looking at the text where it says "inner truth". fact 2 is argumentative and depends on pointing to specific points in EM to ground its conclusion that the text is fascist (since this pointed to aspects are fascist) This means that the above criteria applies here too.
If the two are not dependent factually: with fact 1 being the ground to fact 2, then they would maintain their factual veracity when separated.
As an argument, A problem arises only when the fascist character is predicted on the inner truth phrase
As a Fact, A problem arises only when the fascist fact appeals to the inner truth fact as its factual ground.
Supposing one were to make a demand on the fascist claim to offer specific examples in EM? my point was that the inner truth sentence or phrase would not be one of them since it would contradict its claim ( as secondary source quotations and not my own interpretation from Hans, lewalter and Julian have shown above). The point to be made is not a denial of the existence of the fascist perception but the amalgamation of the two claims that are from varying sources and contradictory in their meaning and intention as though they are related in context, intention, and semantics.
Btw the sentence does explain some of the notorious aspects of the book and reasonably well at that. By your own admission, the sentence is factual. all it does is say the work is regarded as fascist in character; and that the work refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism. It does not explain anything or how this two facts might be related (if they are at all) and in what sense. Διοτιμα ( talk) 08:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of how poorly expressed or prolixed the comments are ; they are in good sooth. Its intention is to bring to attention that the two quotations from varying sources cannot be amalgamated either in a factual or argumentative manner since they are at variance with each other. How can you understand any specific proposal is you cant understand what the specific problem is. The same fascist claim is presented in the reception part of the article in a non problematic fashion. It is only in its introductory amalgamative form that it is problematic; since the two sources that are used are at variance. If, as you have claimed, that they are not dependent in a factual or argumentative manner (then how are they dependent) then separate them Διοτιμα ( talk) 09:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly the book is most infamous for this quote. But I doubt the quote is seen as offering the work's most valuable or significant insight. This gets to the "fascist in character" bit. The lead seems to dismiss the work with this comment. It's doubtful that a three-word summary of Heidegger would shed much light on the work. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA3:D560:288B:5E6:D98D:F8C8 ( talk) 00:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's another poorly done bit: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a guide into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions."
Why does the first clause of the above sentence exist? Moreover, I'd say the book is entirely idiosyncratic and concerns Heidegger's views, rather than generally guiding the reader "into metaphysics" as a broadly established field of inquiry.
So. that bit seems like a "fail." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 18:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this edit by Διοτιμα, but after consulting Being and Time I have reconsidered and restored many of the changes made. Note, however, that it was misleading to add that Heidegger commended Introduction to Metaphysics as an "elucidation to the question of being" - the text is not a direct quotation from Being and Time. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid I have had to revert this edit by Διοτιμα also. Simply put, filling the article full of quotations from Heidegger is not a way to write a good article and does not help its readers. Rather, the article needs to summarize material and make proper use of secondary sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have made an ANI post about the disruptive editing by Διοτιμα, including the removal of all mention of Heidegger's praise for Nazism from the lead of the article. This is outright censorship and distortion and is intolerable. Per WP:LEAD, the lead must "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - in this case, that obviously includes controversies related to Heidegger's pro-Nazi comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Διοτιμα is edit warring to add the following text to the "Overview" section: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a leading into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions. This stems from the fact that, to Heidegger ; “Questions are as they they are actually asked, and this is the only way in which they are”." While I accept that the addition is being made in good faith, Διοτιμα is ignoring the fact that the article is written in English. In English, one does not use expressions such as "a leading into metaphysics", except, I suppose, when trying to somehow force English to conform to Heidegger's German, which produces unfortunate results and of course is of no use to readers trying to understand Introduction to Metaphysics. I for one believe that the article should be written in a way that might help readers understand it and that it should be written in normal and straightforward English, not in weird, contorted pseudo-English. I suggest that Διοτιμα propose a suitably rewritten version of his or her addition. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
--Reguarding the Young quote in lead, the typical Wikipedia thing about "it's a reliable source so therefore it's ok" is obviously so often a matter of bad faith.
I'd be guilty of "original research" or "synthesis," or something, no doubt, for pointing out that the bulk of published analysis concerning this book doesn't focus on its supposed "fascist character." So I just won't bother messing with whoever obviously has this article under their wing. I'm be sure to "lose."
But I do find the lead disappoints my hope of getting much insight. The book is, however, is, nonetheless most superficially known for the quote fragment that is cited.
Over the last several days, Διοτιμα has, without any discussion on the talk page, been trying to force through a controversial change. It can be seen here. Among other things, the change replaced the statement that Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics "has been widely regarded as fascist in character" with the statement that it is "regarded by some writers as fascist in character". Διοτιμα recently made this same change with the summary, "expanded lead, as per WP:LEAD". Perhaps user Διοτιμα does not have enough experience on Wikipedia to understand this, but the edit summary he or she used was inaccurate. Διοτιμα's edit made the article very slightly longer in terms of byte size, but it did not expand the lead in any meaningful sense. Rather, it made unexplained changes, including trying to water-down the reputation of Introduction to Metaphysics as a fascist work. I regard this as unacceptable. Διοτιμα, please stop edit warring and stop using misleading edit summaries and discuss your edits here in a reasonable fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone reading this, the information about Introduction to Metaphysics being regarded as fascist in character is sourced to page 8 of Julian Young's book Heidegger, philosophy, Nazism. The relevant passage of the book read as follows: "In chapter 4 I turn to the rather different works of the mid-thirties, especially to the lectures on Hölderin's ′Germanien′ and ′der Rhein′ and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character." Reading that statement, it ought to be obvious that the wording preferred by Διοτιμα, that Introduction to Metaphysics is "regarded by some writers as fascist in character", understates the extent to which Introduction to Metaphysics is considered fascist in character. There is a general perception, shared even by people sympathetic to Heidegger, that the book is fascist in character. It is far more than simply the opinion of "some writers", as Διοτιμα is trying to claim.
The remaining change that Διοτιμα is trying to make is to replace the text "The work is famous for Heidegger's powerful reinterpretation of Greek thought" with the text, "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein has led it to regarded by some writers as fascist in character". The first part of Διοτιμα's added text, about "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein", has no clear source and may be a case of original research. If the addition is meant to be sourced to page 8 of Young's book, then it is a serious misrepresentation of the source. Nowhere does that page state anything like what Διοτιμα wants to add to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Warshy, you commented on a previous dispute here, what is your view of this one? I'd likes Drmies's view as well, if he is watching this. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is only one review cited, but the head is plural. The 2001 review (as represented) seems to primarily concern the accuracy and utility of one of the two English translations. Also, the article notes that the reviewer (Groth) criticized the omission (in the translation under review) of an outline that had been included by its original (1953 German Language) editor Petra Jaeger. This outline appears in the translation's second edition (2014). The first edition is currently out of print.
To the extent that the material merely critiques translation and editing as such, the material is pretty irrelevant to this article. The exception (???) may be a single sentence cobbled together by a Wikipedia writer as follows:
He described "Heidegger's readings of Heraclitus and Parmenides" as "famously idiosyncratic", and his "suggestion that they fundamentally agree" as "challenging".[8]
But that sentence is grammatically effed up. "They" here could refer either to Heidegger's agreement with Heraclitus and Parmeides, or H&P's agreement with each other. Moreover, in American English, periods and commas fall inside of quotation marks.
Apart from grammar, the sentence is too far into the weeds and without adequate context to offer any general insight into the book.
Probably best to just eliminate or find something meaningful for this segment.
For that matter, excluding this translation reviewer Groth, the article has only one analytical source (Young). Given the wealth of secondary literature on the subject, it would seem a poorly sourced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:F503:427C:F427:D7C9 ( talk) 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:AD54:D3E3:7920:88D5 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the article has been clearly improved. The sentence about Heraclitis and Parmenides is also now cleaned up so that it's grammatically sensible. However, it's a fairly poor source, consisting of three short graphs that exclusively concern merits of the Fried/Polt translation, vs the earlier one. The remaining five graphs are a cursory summary of the book's actual contents.
Groth's piece doesn't really intend to reflect anything of the book's "reception." Moreover one must merely guess whether by "reception," the subhead is intended to mean something that happened historically, when it "arrived" in 1953 (that might be the most obvious possible meaning), or how it's viewed currently -- or how that view has evolved ?
Not sure how that could be addressed, but Groth could use a caterer. We know there is an entire volume of substantive essays, edited by Fried/Polt and published by Yale, called "A Companion to Introduction to Metaphysics" -- or something like that.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:10BC:59AF:C646:1A6 ( talk) 01:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes it's not necessarily a legitimate concern. But how/when/why is the subheading "Reception" best applied or omitted in a Wikipedia entry? I'm guessing the criterion is arbitrary and quite foggy, but some observable tendencies: Less likely, perhaps, in older philosophy works and more typical in recent, "popular" works?
To reiterate, the section (and entire article) is thinly sourced and its actual content (at the moment) offers little insight into the topic at hand (although it potentially might). It's nonetheless slightly improved from previous version!
The only statement in this Wikipedia article about the book's significance that is properly sourced is the Nazi bit from Young. The material sourced to the LA review's letters section (note 7) is apparently unsupported by the citation -- and should be removed. (Groth's sole surviving comment concerns a narrow detail, the significance of which in relation to the book's overall content is unexplained, not least by Groth.)
In the "Reception" section, it's asserted that the book is both famous and infamous, and cites the book for support. But the book said about itself neither. This should be properly sourced (preferably not to Young), or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 21:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The remaining bits of the Wikipedia article (its present core) are sourced directly from the book, and are represented as an "overview." But this representation is apparently the product of an Wikipedia editor's personal appraisal, and are thus weakly credible at best.
Optimally given these weaknesses, the article should be either pared down, OR (or until) expanded, by somebody willing and able to use the wealth of available sources. (That's not me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D049:D259:67D0:E51A ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
All that aside, I think, maybe (could well be wrong) IM was the first H. book translated into English. Its reception as such, among English speakers, might be interesting under the subheading, but then obviously, not as CURRENTLY relevant material.
76.250.61.86 (
talk)
15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not there. I've just read through the translators' introduction to both the first and second editions a couple of times. (They are somewhat different). Neither calls the work either "famous" nor "infamous." Neither does it characterize the work as a "reinterpretation" of Greek thought.
Same for Jaeger's afterword.
I may be missing it, but I don't think so. Unless I'm mistaken, the article would be improved by removing this material.
If I'm mistaken, then the citation should be changed to indicate what, exactly is being cited. As currently written it suggests that Heidegger called his book (before it was published) famous and infamous, which obviously would be unlikely. Here's an online link to the (lut-of-print) first edition. I have second edition hard copy. http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Heidegger/IntroductionMetaphysics.pdf 2600:1702:39A0:3720:E06F:D8C9:ECA:EDCA ( talk) 02:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Much improved without the apparently false citation. Maybe no "citation needed" at all, for that little bit? Very brief googling of "Heidegger, famous infamous" got nothing obviously useful. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:9111:4229:AB06:76E9 ( talk) 13:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article’s text offers no “sourced” connection between the QCT essay (note 5) and IM. Something might be gained by making such a connection, but it’s unclear who is making it here -- nor exactly why. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:84CC:A2E:644E:15B4 ( talk) 01:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Under “Reception" subhead, I propose two sentences. After first current, existing sentence add:
Gregory Fried and Richard Polt wrote that “interpreters differ widely, and often acrimoniously, on whether Heidegger’s Nazism was due to a a personal character defect” or whether the philosophy itself reflects a fascist outlook. ( citation: IM Second Edition, Yale, 2014, Translators’ Introduction, page xiv)
And following the current, second sentence, add:
However, Young disputes this view, contending instead that Introduction to Metaphysics condemns Nazism for its racism, militarism and attempted destruction of civil society. (citation: Young, P. 117)
WHY?: the first proposed sentence is a neutral statement from an authoritative source regarding one unsettled question reflected in this article.
The other proposed sentence: One may be obliged, in fairness, to represent Young's view concerning his (twice-) quoted statement. Moreover, the existing Young quote is from his introduction (page 8) and refers to a more complete treatment of the idea offered in chapter 4. There Young says:
"A position widely subscribed to by those who believe that some kind of a criticism of Heidegger's philosophy can be mounted on the basis of his political engagement …[is that the]… Introduction to Metaphysics is evidently and indelibly fascist in character“ (cite: Young page 109). Young is not a very elegant writer.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:38E0:957E:F495:BA55 ( talk) 01:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
OK I've added the sentences. Unfortunately, one could possibly get the (mistaken) impression, solely on the basis of this article, that book is extensively and explicitly about Nazism. The new additions don't address this potential problem.
Young is perhaps an acceptable, but problematic source. His "fascist in character" statement is calculated to make his thesis to the contrary easier to argue; serving as a kind of "straw man." Moreover, Young's thesis may be on the far end of the spectrum of potential views regarding the book. Having just eyeballed the thing, and not being an expert, it's not for me to say. And no polling has been done to settle this.
But the question itself is for most readers willing to seriously struggle with Heidegger, mostly beside the point.
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 19:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Your statement is of course correct, but implies the choice among “reliable sources” and what to pluck from any given source is arbitrary. In practice, that's apparently true! But it's not ideal.
Young’s central thesis about IM is that it’s a purely anti-Nazi work (unusual idea). Moreover, Young makes his ancillary point about “fascist in character” in a confused manner. In one instance, it's the general view among “even those sympathetic” — while in another, the view is limited to those “who believe some kind of criticism... can be mounted….”
Both statements are currently and accurately attributed to the same “reliable source,” but they are potentially contradictory and thus create minor confusion. The problem, relatively unimportant to readers of Young’s book, becomes slightly more pronounced in the different context here.
For easy reference:
Young, P. 8 "In chapter 4 I turn to the rather different works of the midthirties, especially to the lectures on Hölderlin's 'Germanien' and 'der Rhein' and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character."
Young P. 109 "A position widely subscribed to by those who believe that some kind of a criticism of Heidegger's philosophy can be mounted on the basis of his political engagement involves a sharp distinction between the early philosophy of Being and Time and the philosophy of the first half of the 1930s. According to this view, while Being and Time is an essentially apolitical work, criticisable, at best, for failing to provide a more powerful bastion against a fascist involvement, the works of the early thirties especially The Origin of the Work of Art' (PLT pp. 15–88), the Hölderlin lectures of 1934–5 (GA 39) and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which are taken to constitute a unity centred on the Rectoral Address –are seen as evidently and indelibly fascist in character." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Possibly thus:
Introduction to Metaphysics (German: Einführung in die Metaphysik) is a 1953 book about metaphysics by the philosopher Martin Heidegger. The work is a revised and edited lecture course Heidegger gave in the summer of 1935 at the University of Freiburg. The work is famous for Heidegger's reinterpretation of Greek thought. It is distinctive for presenting a total rejection of Nazism. (cite Young p. 116.)
Editor’s Note: "Young is a professor of philosophy, who has had books published by reputable academic publishers. He is a perfectly acceptable source." 2600:1702:39A0:3720:F0A6:635E:460A:7A23 ( talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I've added a dozen words to the final sentence of the lead, specifically: "by those who believe Heidegger can be criticized for his political engagement."
It's not controversial that H. "can be criticized for his political engagement." But article caters too much to easy pop caricature of Heidegger.
Young's sole thesis is that nearly everyone but him is wrong about IM. He's quite specific and detailed and possibly correct (I don't think so). But this makes him a relatively poor choice for source. If the source is right, then the information he "provides" is wrong. There are many other choices available for appropriation. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:65DF:FA5C:6DFD:F051 ( talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I think adding the full quote in the body of the article is reasonable. It can be effectively introduced by saying (according to the book's index) it's IM's sole mention (p222) of Nazism. Much (50%+) of the existing published literature on IM does spell out this quote (because it's useful).
Maybe I'll restore it here at some point, in the interest of constructively adding content to this article.
Also, the sentence on "Introducing the English-speaking world" to H. &etc... could be more succinct. Significance is currently overstated in article. The book was three years ahead of B&T. The timing of this translation is interesting yes -- certainly. Martin Woessner devotes very little space to this matter in Heidegger in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). The book aims to be comprehensive and authoritative survey of his historical roll-out and reception.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Heidegger, in his [1953] preface to Being and Time, identified IM as relevant to the concerns which the unwritten second half of Being and Time would have addressed.
This is simple, key and constructive information about the article's topic. I added it -- and YOU removed. This is NOT constructive editing.
Yes, info is directly from another Wikipedia article, but I'm just too lazy at the moment to confirm with my MacQuarie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:70F6:3897:F265:3DFA ( talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: Using the principle of "keeping like ideas together," I've moved the comment from F&P on the 1959 translation to where it is first mentioned -- under "publication history" or whatever the subhead reads. Also, making clear that "it" was a matter of three years adds context to the F&P comment. Editors here seem to have nothing to say regarding the proposals implied in above discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:A980:88DA:1B1C:FF63 ( talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:2DB9:2F6B:9511:15C1 ( talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Prof. Groth is quoted as saying elements of the book are "idiosyncratic" and "challenging." But WHY does he say this? Without more information, whatever point Groth tried to make is lost -- and the Wikipedia passage practically meaningless. (see quote below).
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Academic reviews aren't equal to Facebook Likes. The "important point" is why and how a reviewer reaches a judgment. Adding some of this information in a Wikipedia article potentially offers useful insight; ignoring it results in a weak and uninformative contribution.
Regarding a source, contextual information -- such as length -- is useful. One simple example: in The New Yorker, books are reviewed in a column labeled "briefly noted" or in full-length features. This provides implicit information about editors' judgment. A further example: the subheading in this article: "Background and publication history." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Merely saying that Groth applied several adjectives to the topic isn't the desired standard. This is uncontroversial and involves no personal bias. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 00:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In a few instances here (not all) I've changed professional titles. Heidegger is a "Philosopher" and among prime cited individuals in this article. It's a bit awkward, but All philosophy professors CALL themselves philosophers. It's needless confusion.
Perhaps it's polite to refer to them as philosophers. It may even be stylistically correct. (Certainly if you follow their universities' stylebook).
They are cited here commenting as historians of philosophy -- and strictly from citation info, function primarily on university salaries. Your community college creative writing teacher is probably an author, so what do you call them?
So I've called them "Professor X." Perhaps Dr. X would be more correct. But Heidegger was a doctor too. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:113E:7002:C1C5:46F8 ( talk) 23:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll fix: An editor has changed content in the Wikipedia article a manner that misinforms.
Background: In B&T's “Author’s preface to Seventh German Edition" H. notes that he’s removed reference (appearing in earlier editions) to the “second half” of B&T, which, after 25 years, he announces that he will never write. H adds that the just-published IM would “elucidate questions” regarding the planned-but-never-written (yet much-discussed) "second half." The correctness of this assertion apparently hasn't proven universally obvious to fans during the ensuing 70 years -- but nonetheless, there it is.
Amusingly, one might infer (but probably not source, nor therefore use in Wikipedia) that the "Author's Preface" was at least partly intended to boost sales (!). The B&T 7th edition was published simultaneously with first edition of IM. The B&T preface totals eight short (for H!) sentences, covering less than one-half page of a 600-page book. Nobody, apparently regards the B&T preface as offering key information, but it certainly provides interesting context regarding IM. It also "elucidates" material recently added (not by me) regarding an assertion by Fried/Polt. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've re-added the one-sentence quote from IM on National Socialism. Perhaps a third of the content of this article (at the moment) revolves around this single sentence.
Cutting it would be unjustified.
I've moved it (per suggestion) to the "Summary" section. This creates an awkward and unsurmountable (?) problem: violating the basic writing principle of "keep like ideas together," but apparently in this case, can't be helped.
I guess you're really a stickler for keeping that single sentence by Heidegger from an article about Heidegger. Your view simply takes precedence over the question of whether this additional context is "undue" and repetitive. The article loses and is slightly diminished.
As for personal commentary, the book's index is a primary source made to read. A cited reference to its information is not personal commentary. Moreover, it's noted many times elsewhere, sometimes "infamously." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 00:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Each of endless published works on Heidegger that include this quote reflects "competent" editorial judgment. Its wide inclusion in such work (Google the quote) doesn't cause editorial controversy, but rather adds clarity and specificity.
Really pointless to explain this any further here, to one who makes such silly, obvious blunders with this article. The effort is wasted.
But I'm confident the article will be fine and that it will improve and grow for the reader with the addition of sourced and properly selected content.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:190C:C094:868:146A ( talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In this regard, I find the subhead "Reception" (where quote was originally inserted) to be, if not "wrong," then inelegant for a philosophy book that is nearly 70 years old.
I suggest it be changed to "Critical Opinions" or, "Fan Comments," or "History's Judgments!" I'm hereby soliciting other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Reception is an event in time. One might say that this event happens continually and endlessly. This would be unconventional; a stretch for the concept and contrary to its simple definition.
Material under IM subhead "reception" is (almost ?) entirely from +50yr after the work was "received." This is a bit illogical in the most charitable view; at worst rather silly.
Note the Wikipedia case of Melville's Moby Dick: Under "Reception" is a recounting of critical opinion around the time of publication. The same can be mostly said for the Wikipedia entry on Ben Hur (1959).
The "Reception" subhead is a convention for Wikipedia -- not particularly elegant nor universally followed, nor necessarily required or appropriate.
Examples: "The critical reception of The Wizard of Oz was poor [poorly received by critics]. But critics today now regard the film as a classic."
Example: "The novel, published in 1953, was well-received by critics [at the time]." NOT "The book, published in 1953, was well-received by critics in 2014." NOR "The book was well-received by reviewers in 1953, and continues to enjoy a warm reception from critics."
And "I received the package last year.".... "I received a warm reception at Grandma's house." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Right. So all joking aside and for reasons outlined above, I propose changing title to "Critical Views" or "Critical Opinions."
Other suggestions are solicited, and/or why "Reception" is preferred for a segment without substantial content from when the book was "received?"
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Having requested this previously, I assume the answer is simply "no, not possible."
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 13:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The material under subhead doesn't conform to definition of "Reception." The subhead might be changed, to one that more accurately reflects the currently existing material to which it refers.
You believe this point is irrelevant -- and/or, you simply lack capacity and/or desire to perceive the point at all. Which is perfectly okay! Given these limitations, it would be foolish of me to remain involved in the your project -- or as you see it, to try to spoil it in any way.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:1162:C2A0:84D3:155B ( talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm pleased to have expanded this article's reference list by about 30 percent. But it remains a poorly sourced and generally weak article. Sadly, my further involvement is impossible.
Freeknowledge's basic unfamiliarity with topic -- coupled in an unfortunate manner with his all-too frequent, questionable and insistent judgments -- make him an unfit and unacceptable collaborator.
In a related matter, FK has introduced an elaborate error, revealing ignorance of what's typically among the first and primary "facts" that genuinely interested readers will encounter about the book in question. As a former contributor here, I am embarrassed and humiliated by his blunder.
Given this amply demonstrated incompetence, I urge that FK abstain from further attempts to edit the already mangled information -- and from making other "improvements." But I'm done. Woe to any who foolishly imagine that given FK's presence, such a gem as this article can be easily improved.
76.250.61.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:1162:C2A0:84D3:155B ( talk) 02:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Inadequate familiarity with subject matter to make the edits? If so, best to leave the article alone, thus avoiding still more humiliating blunders. Maybe read more Heidegger instead?
I choose not to contribute, and am very relieved to realize that the category "constructive" is irrelevant to non-contributors.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:4965:10F0:1656:CA8F ( talk) 13:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears that, for reasons not directly related to this article, FKC won't be contributing for a while. Therefore, I've taken the opportunity to correct the error he introduced.
I may also resume my efforts to extend this article's content with sourced material. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't view existing headers or the "organization," such as it is presently, as sacrosanct and will eventually make changes that I hope will be logical. I've already replaced "Reception," provisionally with "Contemporary analysis." This is because most if not all writers available as sources are more intent on analysis rather than on offering a good/bad "reception."
2600:1702:39A0:3720:C11:3FA3:A77B:17C1 (
talk)
01:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The three (presently) new headers are suggested (not verbatim) by similar structure of "Companion To IM" book of essays from which the most recently added sources are drawn.
The previous "Summary" section (content nearly all retained) was based on IM (primary source) and was/is "original research." Editor X deciding (with or without other editors) what constitutes a "Summary" of IM would be "OR" and probably inadequate. I really don't see how one would "source" a "Summary" as such.
Simply avoiding the issue seems like fair solution.
The previous "Reception" header might be revived separately. But I'm not seeing any good, handy sources and am not personally interested in the concept. To those taking on this project, I recommend "Heidegger in America" by Martin Woessner - Cambridge 2010.
Under the new "Politics" header (or in ANY version of this article) material should be added regarding objections raised by Jurgen Habermas in the 1950s regarding "inner greatness" quote. There's various material in one of the more general, current Wik. articles on Heidegger. It may or may not be advisable to simply import the stuff here.
I've removed first reference to "fascist in character." I've retained the second reference to the phrase and the "meat" of this source (previously added by me), which undercuts its own own assertion. Because of this self-abnegation, and because the assertion itself is unsupported by other current sources, it's reasonable to somewhat deemphasize, thus avoiding "undue weight."
The article has significant room for expansion and improvements. I've more than doubled the list of sources while making necessary refinements in the use of some of the few earlier sources.
I certainly hope and expect that many other editors will (soon, or eventually) take an interest in doing similar work on expanding this article.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:81B3:9548:A2B2:1B08 (
talk)
15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
From the limited material that formerly constituted the "Summary" segment:
A key quote within this material: "for metaphysics grounds an age, by giving "that age the basis upon which it is essentially formed."
It's from an essay called "World Picture" (delivered as lecture in 1938). I've added the correct attribution within the text. A reader might otherwise fairly assume it came from IM. If one simply removed it, the whole larger bit would fall apart. I really dislike deleting other people's material and have entirely avoided doing so.
But the material's relevance to IM isn't demonstrated via sources. It points up the difficulty of "editor X" offering their personal "summary" of whatever topic. Personally I wouldn't attempt such a thing via Wikipedia.
Perhaps it should be replaced with something more appropriate. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The article claims that: Heidegger suggested the work relates to the unwritten "second half" of his 1927 magnum opus Being and Time. This is further elucidated or supported by the claim that: In an eight-sentence preface to this 1953 edition of Being and Time, Heidegger wrote that the newly available Introduction to Metaphysics would "elucidate" material contemplated for the planned, but long-abandoned second half of Being and Time.
Unfortunately, the relevant passage in Being and Time and the interpretation adopted by the Translators' introduction to introduction to Metaphysics shows that the claim is profoundly misguided.
The passage form Being and Time runs: For the elucidation of that question the reader may refer to my Einfuhrung in die Metaphysik . . . All hinges on what "that question" is supposed to mean.This is taken by the translators of introduction (in both the first and second editon of the text) to be "the question of Being"
The First edition. . . Martin Heidegger suggested that for an elucidation of the question of Being raised by this text, Second edition: . . . he suggested that for an elucidation of the question of Being raised by this text,
This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the aforementioned preface notes that
Nonetheless, its path still remains a necessary one even today, if the question of being is to move our Dasein.For the elucidation of that question . . .
The confusion might've arisen from what "its path" is supposed to refer to: The whole book First half Second half But this is irrelevant; since "of that question" maintains the same meaning in all references Διοτιμα ( talk) 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
At any rate, the preface does say pretty clearly that the "second half" of B&T is a dead letter, and if you're interested in what it might have said, go buy a copy IM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:E4FC:AEF7:3C24:78A6 ( talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:946A:79B6:7376:C0B3 ( talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A MUCH less-than-optimal (but basically OK) secondary source on "Author's Preface": https://reviews.ophen.org/2016/05/20/lee-braver-ed-division-iii-heideggers-time-unanswered-question/#_ednref6 Heidegger directs us to two quite different texts to help us better understand the (incomplete) project of Being and Time: the Basic Problems of Phenomenology and the Introduction to Metaphysics.[vi] [vi] See M Heidegger, The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans. A Hofstadter (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 1, Note 1/ GA 24, 1, Note 1 and the Author’s Preface to the Seventh German Edition of Heidegger, Being and Time.
At the risk of appearing pedantic, an in depth analysis of what "its path" and "that question" are alluding to should be undertaken. 1. Semantic: its path can refer to Being and Time First half Second half The second half is excluded; given the fact that the sentence in both the basic problems(the path it took) and the translation of Being and time by john Macquarrie & Edward Robinson (the road it has taken) are in past tense. The translation by joan is ambiguous (its path). 2. Contextual. The first half is excluded on the basis that it deals with the "Interpretation of Dasein in terms of temporality" (which was later deemed unnecessary and thus not worth repeating); rendering the sentence redundant if this is taken as the referent. . This leaves only Being and Time which deals with "the question of Being" Thus, that question (the question of Being) and not the "Interpretation of Dasein in terms of temporality" is the relation that the preface aims at alluding at. This can also be supported from the basic problems of phenomenology ; where the translator notes that Being and time as pulished, Kant and the problem of Metaphysics and the basic problems of phenomenology [with some reservations constitute] in there volumes the entire treatise which Heidegger had originally wished to call Being and Time. The introduction is a variation on the explication on the question of being and can thus relate only to Being and Time and not its second half which deals with specific questions that in the furtherance of that question... Hence, at any rate, the preface does not say pretty clearly that the "second half" if you're interested in what it might have said, go buy a copy IM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. All interesting and very unsual points! In particular, it's a valuable reminder that relying purely on primary sources (H) can result in havoc. In general, in a very "large" sense, you may well be correct, although in a more narrow and simple sense, the existing material in the article seems reasonable (and now, thanks to you well sourced).
Regardless, a more careful reading of the preface reveals I had made a very foolish (and somewhat minor) error, which I've corrected. Thank you for indirectly pointing this out !!
I've added the source to which I referred above in which the writer notes that "Heidegger directs us" (in author's preface to 7th Ed) to IM "to help us better understand the (incomplete) project of Being and Time."
I encourage you to expand the article using sourced material -- especially secondary sources.
By way of self-congratulations, I'd like to point out that as of this writing, I've added 14 (?) of the 23 reference notes for this article. Most of what I haven't added were primary sources.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:15F5:AF83:4BCD:F111 ( talk) 23:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(-edited comment, see history)
If you’d like to expand this article, please avoid excessive reliance on primary sources. The reason for this avoidance is adequately explained elsewhere -- if not already obvious.
I’ve recently added a substantial number of secondary sources to both the “ Being and Time” and “ Introduction to Metaphysics” Wikipedia articles -- and by necessity in the process, largely changed them.
Previously both articles had relied mostly on editors’ personal commentaries and explanations of selected citations from the relevant primary source. This is NOT a preferred editing model (although it’s presently followed by most or all of the other W. articles on specific H. texts.)
Also, try and limit new material here to substantive cited information that may incrementally add insight:
Or SOMETHING like that. Not always easy or successful. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:8DEF:D4A3:CCB9:6EBE ( talk) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
RE. “Presocratic” segment:
Among the section's four existing sources, three present (added) information and analysis concerning the book’s content. Groth merely applies two purportedly descriptive terms, “idiosyncratic” and “challenging.”
The mere fact that Groth holds this opinion is unenlightening. Groth may or may not be correct, but there is nothing in the current version of the article that would enable a reader to evaluate his view or its relevance.
Unless something substantive is available from Groth, I’d suggest removing the material.
Moreover, there is some evidence that Groth holds “fringe” views on Heidegger (see note 4, Miles Groth page).
"Referring to publishers, Groth complained (2004) that 'no one will touch' his own, superior personal translations (of two Heidegger essays) 'since I am not part of the inner circle of Heideggerians.' [4] Groth claims that in contrast with existing English translations, Heidegger's works [in their original language] are "quite clear and concise." "
Among all potential sources, Groth is a relatively poor choice -- because he's published nothing specifically devoted to "Introduction to Metaphysics" and isn't widely seen as a "Heidegger expert." Indeed, Groth is most widely noted as a "men's rights advocate," based apparently on his primary career as a psychology professor at Wagner College ( Staten Island).
2601:405:4A80:9E50:795A:B84A:D960:428 ( talk) 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
2601:405:4A80:9E50:8425:7459:5816:F3F6 ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
See above section "Presocratics" on Groth.
Further edits regarding Groth? Please discuss. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:5421:8822:3C56:22AD ( talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger book) was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 19, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Move. I will also convert Introduction to Metaphysics to a disambiguation page per the discussion; as always if one article is identified as the primary topic it can be moved to the base name. Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
An Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) →
Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) – This is the correct English title of the book; see
this link --Relisted.
Armbrust
The Homunculus 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
81.83.137.205 (
talk)
20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Where does the "indelibly fascist" quote come from!?
How is metaphysics understood by the lecture . For it is noted that "The title of the course is thus deliberately ambiguous "(21). How is the fundamental question derived to its singular priority.... Διοτιμα ( talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like an interesting writer of some merit, but it's not a name one encounters much in bibliographies concerning Heidegger. I don't doubt the quote from him is accurate and reasonable, but he's really not the "go-to" guy one would want. Moreover the "Nazi character" of the book isn't widely seen (so far as I know) as its primary or most significant aspect.
Badiacrushed ( talk) 22:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Certainly this work is famed for its "inner truth and greatness" quote. The article's lead says the book is "widely regarded as fascist in character" or something like that.
Perhaps this assertion is true, but there's no citation. Young's quote pertains to his personal view, rather than a perceived consensus. Certainly the assertion has been made regarding Heidegger's work as a whole, and it's been quite "widely" entertained. But not to say "accepted" or "widely regarded" as such. It's a controversy.
Irrelevant example: Aspects of the Bible are humorous in character." This is arguably a true statement. Whole books, in fact have been published on this. "The Bible is humorous in character." This would probably be "widely regarded" as a misleading and basically false statement. But I have no sources. Some, no doubt, regard the Bible as a joke.
SO really, considered from a reader's (myself) point of view, this article is a failure. I've spent more than a year reading various works by and about Heidegger. IM might go on my reading list. I came here hoping for information that would be helpful in a decision.
Yes, of course we all know about H's Nazi dealings and his generally reactionary world view.
But no, simply dismissing IM as "basically fascist" doesn't offer, in itself, worthy insight for readers. Badiacrushed ( talk) 18:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Young's quote pertains to his personal view, rather than a perceived consensus.
Young's personal view is at page 110. As he notes,“the critics of Heidegger's philosophical works of the early thirties, both friendly and hostile, I shall suggest , are all wrong”. As he further notes, “none of these, I shall argue, amount to totalitarianism [and] do not constitute fascism”.
Young's view is here irrelevant. The claim was that there is a widely shared view that the character (and not content ) of the book can be regarded as fascistic. This does not question the views veracity but mentions its existence .
The acknowledgement of the existence of such views is qualitatively different form simply dismissing IM as "basically fascist". This in turn would be a worthy insight for readers ; it informs, contextualizes and shapes their reading : for once, it reflects at what Heidegger himself called Grundstimmung of the work.
Placed in context the quote is an implication of Heidegger’s 1930s corpus . It is a reflection of the view held by Wolin, Herrbamas (who is mentioned in the translator’s introduction to Im) and Sheehan to name a few. Διοτιμα ( talk) 07:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yah not sure about above chatter, but I definitely made a mistake about Young's comment. Point is nonetheless, he's a comparatively obscure analyst. Not necessarily a bad one, but obscure.
The 2001 book "A Companion to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics," published by Yale University, has 13 chapters and 13 authors (not Young), only four of which seem to concern politics. I don't believe the fairly long introduction characterize IM as "fascist." Of course this proves nothing -- yet it may point away from idea that there's is a consensus about the book's "fascist character." I don't know, but am skeptical. Badiacrushed ( talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, indeed, perhaps you're right. In that this is a "talk page," it's reasonable for me to merely point out the fact of Young's relative obscurity among Heidegger analysts. I say this on the basis of looking at a half-dozen bibliographies in which Young's works aren't prominent. It's unimportant that you're unaware of this, or deem it irrelevant.
Of course, I'm sure Young's work is of valid interest, and have not questioned Young as a "reliable source" as normally defined at Wikipedia. If you feel that's the "only relevant issue," then you may be ill-equipped to address the larger question -- or perhaps you're right. I simply don't know.
Problem is, the lede says, or implies, that IM (along with B&T) sums up H's views, and that these are of a "fascist" character. I'm unconvinced that as a matter of consensus among analysts, that this is a reasonable summation, despite the use of a "reliable source." Badiacrushed ( talk) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
True, but unfortunately the only character to which the lede refers is "fascist." One could enumerate an infinite number of things that the lede DOESN'T say. Obviously no point in that.
The lede really only says two things: that H. believed IM and B&T summarize his views on ontology (the only topic H dealt with), and that IM is "widely regarded" as fascist in character. That's all.
"Widely regarded" suggests to the ordinary reader, consensus, unless I'm mistaken.
A word search for the term "fascist" of the Stanford EP entry on Heidegger turns up nothing. Same for IE of P. Interestingly, the Stanford article DOES cite J. Young (though many other analysts are more heavily cited).
I'd have thought that if H's ontology were seen by consensus as "fascist in character," then this view, or at least the term, would turn up in those sources.
But I am quite uncertain about this. Badiacrushed ( talk) 02:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A preference to stay closely as possible to the original source helps to prevent any "hermeneutical chicanery”. Compared to the original source, one can easily see that the "inner truth and greatness" phrase is nothing but tendentious cherry picking and decontextualisation of the text.
1.For starters it is a "in medias res" quotation: quoting only the middle part of the sentence to present the idea that it is the introductory portion. It omits (or better yet is an outright censorship and distortion of) the introductory part that notes " In particular,what is peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism, but which has not the least to do with" and presents only the peacock term the "inner truth and greatness". This creates the illusion that it is an outright claim about NSDAP and not a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such.
2.The tail end of the quote ("is fishing in these troubled waters of "values" and "totalities") is, in an utterly unacceptable outright act of censorship and distortion also not included. This in turn not only "buries the lede" but also deliberately decontextualises the quote to seem as an outright praise of Nazism rather than a polemical discussion of the notion of values and totalities that encompasses a critique of nazism as an example.
3.It ignores the problematic nature of the infixed scholia( "namely, the encounter between global technology and modern humanity") that is a sure discredit that the quote is a praise of nazism rather than an allusion to Heidegger's analysis of modern technology.
4. The phrase as it stands cannot be used to draw the conclusion that has been widely regarded as fascist in character; for it does so at the great and deep expense of obfuscation and misinformation.
5. Fascism (just as all isms) itself is a rather broadly multifaceted and an overdetermined phrase to bare any semantic relevance on itself ( a perfect example being Orwell's essay what is fascism?).One has to point specific parts of the text that reflect specific parts of a clearly defined notion of fascism and not a vague "inner truth" catchphrase. This would be done properly in the reception part and not in the introduction. But still,one has to justify why only the middle half of "inner truth and greatness" quote is picked over the other 44 words that argue contrary to the conclusion derived from it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes; if you refer to the "inner truth and greatness" of something, that's praise - But only and only if the surrounding context argues to this effect. Can you show that? Is the surrounding context in line with your praise claim?
To make it easy, can you provide further context to the phrase that would not only provide the fascist connections that you claim to exist but also offer specific praises of nazism that are given than sticking to the decontextualised "inner truth and greatness" phrase? The point to be made is that it is misleading to use the phrase as it is presented since it hides not only the context but derives a problematic conclusion that is not supported by the full contents of the sentence.What in specific seems praiseworthy about nazism in the quote that speaks of a "peddled philosophy of National Socialism, that has not the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement ?!!
The quote distinguishes between the "peddled philosophy of National Socialism and an alluded other philosophy of National Socialism(that is not talked about in the quote). Which "nazism" are you referring to when you claim that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism". For it is obvious the peddled one is not being praised for " fishing in these troubled waters of "values" and "totalities" " - let alone not being able in " the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement" .Your claim would have to carefully, not only distinguish the two philosophies but also be qualified to reflect that the praise is not leveled at nazism as it is but to the alluded one. But this is in no way a praise of nazism. What is praised is nazism as conceptualised in Heidegger's head which is already not the nazism of crude race biologism ( which is what was intended).
Your inner truth phrase is terribly misleading for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring and thus censoring the rest of the quote that shows what heidegger is praising as Nazism is an eccentric conception of it that is at variance with general nazism and is rather a critique of it that led him to dig up trenches in 1944 in the upper Rhine. Praytell, Which nazism is Heidegger praising? Διοτιμα ( talk) 03:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you see anyone agreeing with your views? Do you think it is at all likely that anyone is going to agree with them?
Answer: Yes!!!?
Christian lewalter seconded by Heidegger himself (See the introduction to EM at xvi)
Julian young (whom you use to as a source does) at page 110 of the quoted book. Hans Sluga's essay in " A Companion to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics" at page 208. He interprets the sentence in question as a four pronged polemical aimed at differing groups. As noted in the prior argument, the quotation was "a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such." Sluga notes that " Heidegger must have wanted to underscore his attack on the theory of values . . . [in 1935 and also in1953] when he [let the quote stand in the text] in order to renew his critique of the philosophy of value and the political appeal to it. For the theory of value was once again in vogue in Germany in 1953" The four pronged polemical claim of Sluga is in line with the distinction of the two philosophies noted above.
As he notes that the sentence made four polemical claims (and not parises)
1. National Socialism has an inner truth and greatness
2. That this must be distinguished from its outer and possibly flawed manifestation.
3. That the speaker himself possesses a unique insight into the inner truth of the movement (this is what is praised)
4. National socialism cannot be grounded in a theory of value and organic unity (page 208)
This is a pure philosophical polemic rather than praises. Were it a praise it would be of what Heidegger conceived to be nazism and not what was nazism in 1935. The polemics, Sluga notes were aimed at
1. Opponents of national socialism
2. Petty , bureaucratic party penpushers
3.Party ideologues
4.Value philosophers
if you imagine that I am interested in debating Heidegger with you, you are sorely mistaken. My interest is to discuss how to improve the article by showing that Your inner truth phrase is terribly misleading; for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring the broader context in which it lays, thus, allowing you to draw a problematic conclusion that is contradicted by the larger context. This is not a general discussion or chit-chat, but pointing out that a specific phrase and the conclusion it draws in the article is at variance with the larger context from which it was plucked. your language, not mine, claims that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism" . It claims that as a matter of course a fascist character can be proved from the quote. Again, in your language, not mine, can you provide further context to the phrase that would not only provide the fascist connections that you claim to exist but also offer specific praises of nazism that are given than sticking to the decontextualised "inner truth and greatness" phrase?This, presumably is a good enough use of your time or mine; to ask you to defend or explain Which "nazism" are you referring to when you claim that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism".
Btw Censorship is not limited to removal, it includes tendentious omission and inclusion (which is what the phrase would be if it did not give satisfactory reasons as to why they are done) 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Διοτιμα ( talk)
Claim: The sentence in question is not an attempt to make an argument or to deduce anything.
Answer: What is it then?
If the sentence is not somehow arguing that the work is "fascist" because of its reference to the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism, then there would be no problem taking the phrase out .
If that is your assumption, then it would have the same semantic value if amended to read thus : The work, in which Heidegger refers to "being and becoming", has been widely regarded as fascist in character" Or better yet, it can be emended to read "The work has been widely regarded as fascist in character" without losing any of its meaning and intention.
A problem arises only when the fascist character is predicted on the inner truth phrase .
There is no denial that some people do not consider, while some do consider the book to be fascist in character. All that has been pointed is that the phrase "inner truth" as is decontextualised an tendentiously placed cannot be used to ground that consideration. If it is not grounding it then there would be no problem plucking it out.
Claim: it appears as though you are trying to have an argument about the proper interpretation of Heidegger's work.
Answer: All that has been done ( just like with the reference to the preface to Being and time and other edits ) is point out the simple fact that the matter as quoted is at variance with the original text. You don't have to interpret anything ; but do a simple comparison with the text to make such foolish accusations about tendentious misrepresentation of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The same criterion offered above still stands.
If the sentence is a fact, then it makes two factual claims:
1.The work refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism.
2. The work has been widely regarded by some as fascist in character.
Fact 1(since its the inner truth phrase) can be proved by EM or Julian's: which ultimately depends on EM (for it claims in Em there is such a phrase) . Fact 2 ( which is nothing but the claim that there exist a group of people who consider EM thus) can only be proved by Julian's and not EM which does not even mention the word fascist. Julian, to prove fact 2 will have to name the people who deem EM thus. They in turn will have to allude to specific parts of EM that they deem fascist in character.
The two are unrelated facts. Fact one can be proved by just looking at the text where it says "inner truth". fact 2 is argumentative and depends on pointing to specific points in EM to ground its conclusion that the text is fascist (since this pointed to aspects are fascist) This means that the above criteria applies here too.
If the two are not dependent factually: with fact 1 being the ground to fact 2, then they would maintain their factual veracity when separated.
As an argument, A problem arises only when the fascist character is predicted on the inner truth phrase
As a Fact, A problem arises only when the fascist fact appeals to the inner truth fact as its factual ground.
Supposing one were to make a demand on the fascist claim to offer specific examples in EM? my point was that the inner truth sentence or phrase would not be one of them since it would contradict its claim ( as secondary source quotations and not my own interpretation from Hans, lewalter and Julian have shown above). The point to be made is not a denial of the existence of the fascist perception but the amalgamation of the two claims that are from varying sources and contradictory in their meaning and intention as though they are related in context, intention, and semantics.
Btw the sentence does explain some of the notorious aspects of the book and reasonably well at that. By your own admission, the sentence is factual. all it does is say the work is regarded as fascist in character; and that the work refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism. It does not explain anything or how this two facts might be related (if they are at all) and in what sense. Διοτιμα ( talk) 08:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of how poorly expressed or prolixed the comments are ; they are in good sooth. Its intention is to bring to attention that the two quotations from varying sources cannot be amalgamated either in a factual or argumentative manner since they are at variance with each other. How can you understand any specific proposal is you cant understand what the specific problem is. The same fascist claim is presented in the reception part of the article in a non problematic fashion. It is only in its introductory amalgamative form that it is problematic; since the two sources that are used are at variance. If, as you have claimed, that they are not dependent in a factual or argumentative manner (then how are they dependent) then separate them Διοτιμα ( talk) 09:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly the book is most infamous for this quote. But I doubt the quote is seen as offering the work's most valuable or significant insight. This gets to the "fascist in character" bit. The lead seems to dismiss the work with this comment. It's doubtful that a three-word summary of Heidegger would shed much light on the work. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA3:D560:288B:5E6:D98D:F8C8 ( talk) 00:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's another poorly done bit: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a guide into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions."
Why does the first clause of the above sentence exist? Moreover, I'd say the book is entirely idiosyncratic and concerns Heidegger's views, rather than generally guiding the reader "into metaphysics" as a broadly established field of inquiry.
So. that bit seems like a "fail." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 18:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this edit by Διοτιμα, but after consulting Being and Time I have reconsidered and restored many of the changes made. Note, however, that it was misleading to add that Heidegger commended Introduction to Metaphysics as an "elucidation to the question of being" - the text is not a direct quotation from Being and Time. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid I have had to revert this edit by Διοτιμα also. Simply put, filling the article full of quotations from Heidegger is not a way to write a good article and does not help its readers. Rather, the article needs to summarize material and make proper use of secondary sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have made an ANI post about the disruptive editing by Διοτιμα, including the removal of all mention of Heidegger's praise for Nazism from the lead of the article. This is outright censorship and distortion and is intolerable. Per WP:LEAD, the lead must "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - in this case, that obviously includes controversies related to Heidegger's pro-Nazi comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Διοτιμα is edit warring to add the following text to the "Overview" section: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a leading into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions. This stems from the fact that, to Heidegger ; “Questions are as they they are actually asked, and this is the only way in which they are”." While I accept that the addition is being made in good faith, Διοτιμα is ignoring the fact that the article is written in English. In English, one does not use expressions such as "a leading into metaphysics", except, I suppose, when trying to somehow force English to conform to Heidegger's German, which produces unfortunate results and of course is of no use to readers trying to understand Introduction to Metaphysics. I for one believe that the article should be written in a way that might help readers understand it and that it should be written in normal and straightforward English, not in weird, contorted pseudo-English. I suggest that Διοτιμα propose a suitably rewritten version of his or her addition. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
--Reguarding the Young quote in lead, the typical Wikipedia thing about "it's a reliable source so therefore it's ok" is obviously so often a matter of bad faith.
I'd be guilty of "original research" or "synthesis," or something, no doubt, for pointing out that the bulk of published analysis concerning this book doesn't focus on its supposed "fascist character." So I just won't bother messing with whoever obviously has this article under their wing. I'm be sure to "lose."
But I do find the lead disappoints my hope of getting much insight. The book is, however, is, nonetheless most superficially known for the quote fragment that is cited.
Over the last several days, Διοτιμα has, without any discussion on the talk page, been trying to force through a controversial change. It can be seen here. Among other things, the change replaced the statement that Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics "has been widely regarded as fascist in character" with the statement that it is "regarded by some writers as fascist in character". Διοτιμα recently made this same change with the summary, "expanded lead, as per WP:LEAD". Perhaps user Διοτιμα does not have enough experience on Wikipedia to understand this, but the edit summary he or she used was inaccurate. Διοτιμα's edit made the article very slightly longer in terms of byte size, but it did not expand the lead in any meaningful sense. Rather, it made unexplained changes, including trying to water-down the reputation of Introduction to Metaphysics as a fascist work. I regard this as unacceptable. Διοτιμα, please stop edit warring and stop using misleading edit summaries and discuss your edits here in a reasonable fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone reading this, the information about Introduction to Metaphysics being regarded as fascist in character is sourced to page 8 of Julian Young's book Heidegger, philosophy, Nazism. The relevant passage of the book read as follows: "In chapter 4 I turn to the rather different works of the mid-thirties, especially to the lectures on Hölderin's ′Germanien′ and ′der Rhein′ and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character." Reading that statement, it ought to be obvious that the wording preferred by Διοτιμα, that Introduction to Metaphysics is "regarded by some writers as fascist in character", understates the extent to which Introduction to Metaphysics is considered fascist in character. There is a general perception, shared even by people sympathetic to Heidegger, that the book is fascist in character. It is far more than simply the opinion of "some writers", as Διοτιμα is trying to claim.
The remaining change that Διοτιμα is trying to make is to replace the text "The work is famous for Heidegger's powerful reinterpretation of Greek thought" with the text, "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein has led it to regarded by some writers as fascist in character". The first part of Διοτιμα's added text, about "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein", has no clear source and may be a case of original research. If the addition is meant to be sourced to page 8 of Young's book, then it is a serious misrepresentation of the source. Nowhere does that page state anything like what Διοτιμα wants to add to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Warshy, you commented on a previous dispute here, what is your view of this one? I'd likes Drmies's view as well, if he is watching this. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is only one review cited, but the head is plural. The 2001 review (as represented) seems to primarily concern the accuracy and utility of one of the two English translations. Also, the article notes that the reviewer (Groth) criticized the omission (in the translation under review) of an outline that had been included by its original (1953 German Language) editor Petra Jaeger. This outline appears in the translation's second edition (2014). The first edition is currently out of print.
To the extent that the material merely critiques translation and editing as such, the material is pretty irrelevant to this article. The exception (???) may be a single sentence cobbled together by a Wikipedia writer as follows:
He described "Heidegger's readings of Heraclitus and Parmenides" as "famously idiosyncratic", and his "suggestion that they fundamentally agree" as "challenging".[8]
But that sentence is grammatically effed up. "They" here could refer either to Heidegger's agreement with Heraclitus and Parmeides, or H&P's agreement with each other. Moreover, in American English, periods and commas fall inside of quotation marks.
Apart from grammar, the sentence is too far into the weeds and without adequate context to offer any general insight into the book.
Probably best to just eliminate or find something meaningful for this segment.
For that matter, excluding this translation reviewer Groth, the article has only one analytical source (Young). Given the wealth of secondary literature on the subject, it would seem a poorly sourced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:F503:427C:F427:D7C9 ( talk) 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:AD54:D3E3:7920:88D5 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the article has been clearly improved. The sentence about Heraclitis and Parmenides is also now cleaned up so that it's grammatically sensible. However, it's a fairly poor source, consisting of three short graphs that exclusively concern merits of the Fried/Polt translation, vs the earlier one. The remaining five graphs are a cursory summary of the book's actual contents.
Groth's piece doesn't really intend to reflect anything of the book's "reception." Moreover one must merely guess whether by "reception," the subhead is intended to mean something that happened historically, when it "arrived" in 1953 (that might be the most obvious possible meaning), or how it's viewed currently -- or how that view has evolved ?
Not sure how that could be addressed, but Groth could use a caterer. We know there is an entire volume of substantive essays, edited by Fried/Polt and published by Yale, called "A Companion to Introduction to Metaphysics" -- or something like that.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:10BC:59AF:C646:1A6 ( talk) 01:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes it's not necessarily a legitimate concern. But how/when/why is the subheading "Reception" best applied or omitted in a Wikipedia entry? I'm guessing the criterion is arbitrary and quite foggy, but some observable tendencies: Less likely, perhaps, in older philosophy works and more typical in recent, "popular" works?
To reiterate, the section (and entire article) is thinly sourced and its actual content (at the moment) offers little insight into the topic at hand (although it potentially might). It's nonetheless slightly improved from previous version!
The only statement in this Wikipedia article about the book's significance that is properly sourced is the Nazi bit from Young. The material sourced to the LA review's letters section (note 7) is apparently unsupported by the citation -- and should be removed. (Groth's sole surviving comment concerns a narrow detail, the significance of which in relation to the book's overall content is unexplained, not least by Groth.)
In the "Reception" section, it's asserted that the book is both famous and infamous, and cites the book for support. But the book said about itself neither. This should be properly sourced (preferably not to Young), or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 21:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The remaining bits of the Wikipedia article (its present core) are sourced directly from the book, and are represented as an "overview." But this representation is apparently the product of an Wikipedia editor's personal appraisal, and are thus weakly credible at best.
Optimally given these weaknesses, the article should be either pared down, OR (or until) expanded, by somebody willing and able to use the wealth of available sources. (That's not me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D049:D259:67D0:E51A ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
All that aside, I think, maybe (could well be wrong) IM was the first H. book translated into English. Its reception as such, among English speakers, might be interesting under the subheading, but then obviously, not as CURRENTLY relevant material.
76.250.61.86 (
talk)
15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not there. I've just read through the translators' introduction to both the first and second editions a couple of times. (They are somewhat different). Neither calls the work either "famous" nor "infamous." Neither does it characterize the work as a "reinterpretation" of Greek thought.
Same for Jaeger's afterword.
I may be missing it, but I don't think so. Unless I'm mistaken, the article would be improved by removing this material.
If I'm mistaken, then the citation should be changed to indicate what, exactly is being cited. As currently written it suggests that Heidegger called his book (before it was published) famous and infamous, which obviously would be unlikely. Here's an online link to the (lut-of-print) first edition. I have second edition hard copy. http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Heidegger/IntroductionMetaphysics.pdf 2600:1702:39A0:3720:E06F:D8C9:ECA:EDCA ( talk) 02:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Much improved without the apparently false citation. Maybe no "citation needed" at all, for that little bit? Very brief googling of "Heidegger, famous infamous" got nothing obviously useful. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:9111:4229:AB06:76E9 ( talk) 13:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article’s text offers no “sourced” connection between the QCT essay (note 5) and IM. Something might be gained by making such a connection, but it’s unclear who is making it here -- nor exactly why. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:84CC:A2E:644E:15B4 ( talk) 01:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Under “Reception" subhead, I propose two sentences. After first current, existing sentence add:
Gregory Fried and Richard Polt wrote that “interpreters differ widely, and often acrimoniously, on whether Heidegger’s Nazism was due to a a personal character defect” or whether the philosophy itself reflects a fascist outlook. ( citation: IM Second Edition, Yale, 2014, Translators’ Introduction, page xiv)
And following the current, second sentence, add:
However, Young disputes this view, contending instead that Introduction to Metaphysics condemns Nazism for its racism, militarism and attempted destruction of civil society. (citation: Young, P. 117)
WHY?: the first proposed sentence is a neutral statement from an authoritative source regarding one unsettled question reflected in this article.
The other proposed sentence: One may be obliged, in fairness, to represent Young's view concerning his (twice-) quoted statement. Moreover, the existing Young quote is from his introduction (page 8) and refers to a more complete treatment of the idea offered in chapter 4. There Young says:
"A position widely subscribed to by those who believe that some kind of a criticism of Heidegger's philosophy can be mounted on the basis of his political engagement …[is that the]… Introduction to Metaphysics is evidently and indelibly fascist in character“ (cite: Young page 109). Young is not a very elegant writer.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:38E0:957E:F495:BA55 ( talk) 01:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
OK I've added the sentences. Unfortunately, one could possibly get the (mistaken) impression, solely on the basis of this article, that book is extensively and explicitly about Nazism. The new additions don't address this potential problem.
Young is perhaps an acceptable, but problematic source. His "fascist in character" statement is calculated to make his thesis to the contrary easier to argue; serving as a kind of "straw man." Moreover, Young's thesis may be on the far end of the spectrum of potential views regarding the book. Having just eyeballed the thing, and not being an expert, it's not for me to say. And no polling has been done to settle this.
But the question itself is for most readers willing to seriously struggle with Heidegger, mostly beside the point.
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 19:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Your statement is of course correct, but implies the choice among “reliable sources” and what to pluck from any given source is arbitrary. In practice, that's apparently true! But it's not ideal.
Young’s central thesis about IM is that it’s a purely anti-Nazi work (unusual idea). Moreover, Young makes his ancillary point about “fascist in character” in a confused manner. In one instance, it's the general view among “even those sympathetic” — while in another, the view is limited to those “who believe some kind of criticism... can be mounted….”
Both statements are currently and accurately attributed to the same “reliable source,” but they are potentially contradictory and thus create minor confusion. The problem, relatively unimportant to readers of Young’s book, becomes slightly more pronounced in the different context here.
For easy reference:
Young, P. 8 "In chapter 4 I turn to the rather different works of the midthirties, especially to the lectures on Hölderlin's 'Germanien' and 'der Rhein' and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character."
Young P. 109 "A position widely subscribed to by those who believe that some kind of a criticism of Heidegger's philosophy can be mounted on the basis of his political engagement involves a sharp distinction between the early philosophy of Being and Time and the philosophy of the first half of the 1930s. According to this view, while Being and Time is an essentially apolitical work, criticisable, at best, for failing to provide a more powerful bastion against a fascist involvement, the works of the early thirties especially The Origin of the Work of Art' (PLT pp. 15–88), the Hölderlin lectures of 1934–5 (GA 39) and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which are taken to constitute a unity centred on the Rectoral Address –are seen as evidently and indelibly fascist in character." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Possibly thus:
Introduction to Metaphysics (German: Einführung in die Metaphysik) is a 1953 book about metaphysics by the philosopher Martin Heidegger. The work is a revised and edited lecture course Heidegger gave in the summer of 1935 at the University of Freiburg. The work is famous for Heidegger's reinterpretation of Greek thought. It is distinctive for presenting a total rejection of Nazism. (cite Young p. 116.)
Editor’s Note: "Young is a professor of philosophy, who has had books published by reputable academic publishers. He is a perfectly acceptable source." 2600:1702:39A0:3720:F0A6:635E:460A:7A23 ( talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I've added a dozen words to the final sentence of the lead, specifically: "by those who believe Heidegger can be criticized for his political engagement."
It's not controversial that H. "can be criticized for his political engagement." But article caters too much to easy pop caricature of Heidegger.
Young's sole thesis is that nearly everyone but him is wrong about IM. He's quite specific and detailed and possibly correct (I don't think so). But this makes him a relatively poor choice for source. If the source is right, then the information he "provides" is wrong. There are many other choices available for appropriation. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:65DF:FA5C:6DFD:F051 ( talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I think adding the full quote in the body of the article is reasonable. It can be effectively introduced by saying (according to the book's index) it's IM's sole mention (p222) of Nazism. Much (50%+) of the existing published literature on IM does spell out this quote (because it's useful).
Maybe I'll restore it here at some point, in the interest of constructively adding content to this article.
Also, the sentence on "Introducing the English-speaking world" to H. &etc... could be more succinct. Significance is currently overstated in article. The book was three years ahead of B&T. The timing of this translation is interesting yes -- certainly. Martin Woessner devotes very little space to this matter in Heidegger in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). The book aims to be comprehensive and authoritative survey of his historical roll-out and reception.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Heidegger, in his [1953] preface to Being and Time, identified IM as relevant to the concerns which the unwritten second half of Being and Time would have addressed.
This is simple, key and constructive information about the article's topic. I added it -- and YOU removed. This is NOT constructive editing.
Yes, info is directly from another Wikipedia article, but I'm just too lazy at the moment to confirm with my MacQuarie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:70F6:3897:F265:3DFA ( talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: Using the principle of "keeping like ideas together," I've moved the comment from F&P on the 1959 translation to where it is first mentioned -- under "publication history" or whatever the subhead reads. Also, making clear that "it" was a matter of three years adds context to the F&P comment. Editors here seem to have nothing to say regarding the proposals implied in above discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:A980:88DA:1B1C:FF63 ( talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:2DB9:2F6B:9511:15C1 ( talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Prof. Groth is quoted as saying elements of the book are "idiosyncratic" and "challenging." But WHY does he say this? Without more information, whatever point Groth tried to make is lost -- and the Wikipedia passage practically meaningless. (see quote below).
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Academic reviews aren't equal to Facebook Likes. The "important point" is why and how a reviewer reaches a judgment. Adding some of this information in a Wikipedia article potentially offers useful insight; ignoring it results in a weak and uninformative contribution.
Regarding a source, contextual information -- such as length -- is useful. One simple example: in The New Yorker, books are reviewed in a column labeled "briefly noted" or in full-length features. This provides implicit information about editors' judgment. A further example: the subheading in this article: "Background and publication history." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Merely saying that Groth applied several adjectives to the topic isn't the desired standard. This is uncontroversial and involves no personal bias. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 00:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In a few instances here (not all) I've changed professional titles. Heidegger is a "Philosopher" and among prime cited individuals in this article. It's a bit awkward, but All philosophy professors CALL themselves philosophers. It's needless confusion.
Perhaps it's polite to refer to them as philosophers. It may even be stylistically correct. (Certainly if you follow their universities' stylebook).
They are cited here commenting as historians of philosophy -- and strictly from citation info, function primarily on university salaries. Your community college creative writing teacher is probably an author, so what do you call them?
So I've called them "Professor X." Perhaps Dr. X would be more correct. But Heidegger was a doctor too. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:113E:7002:C1C5:46F8 ( talk) 23:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll fix: An editor has changed content in the Wikipedia article a manner that misinforms.
Background: In B&T's “Author’s preface to Seventh German Edition" H. notes that he’s removed reference (appearing in earlier editions) to the “second half” of B&T, which, after 25 years, he announces that he will never write. H adds that the just-published IM would “elucidate questions” regarding the planned-but-never-written (yet much-discussed) "second half." The correctness of this assertion apparently hasn't proven universally obvious to fans during the ensuing 70 years -- but nonetheless, there it is.
Amusingly, one might infer (but probably not source, nor therefore use in Wikipedia) that the "Author's Preface" was at least partly intended to boost sales (!). The B&T 7th edition was published simultaneously with first edition of IM. The B&T preface totals eight short (for H!) sentences, covering less than one-half page of a 600-page book. Nobody, apparently regards the B&T preface as offering key information, but it certainly provides interesting context regarding IM. It also "elucidates" material recently added (not by me) regarding an assertion by Fried/Polt. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've re-added the one-sentence quote from IM on National Socialism. Perhaps a third of the content of this article (at the moment) revolves around this single sentence.
Cutting it would be unjustified.
I've moved it (per suggestion) to the "Summary" section. This creates an awkward and unsurmountable (?) problem: violating the basic writing principle of "keep like ideas together," but apparently in this case, can't be helped.
I guess you're really a stickler for keeping that single sentence by Heidegger from an article about Heidegger. Your view simply takes precedence over the question of whether this additional context is "undue" and repetitive. The article loses and is slightly diminished.
As for personal commentary, the book's index is a primary source made to read. A cited reference to its information is not personal commentary. Moreover, it's noted many times elsewhere, sometimes "infamously." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 00:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Each of endless published works on Heidegger that include this quote reflects "competent" editorial judgment. Its wide inclusion in such work (Google the quote) doesn't cause editorial controversy, but rather adds clarity and specificity.
Really pointless to explain this any further here, to one who makes such silly, obvious blunders with this article. The effort is wasted.
But I'm confident the article will be fine and that it will improve and grow for the reader with the addition of sourced and properly selected content.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:190C:C094:868:146A ( talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In this regard, I find the subhead "Reception" (where quote was originally inserted) to be, if not "wrong," then inelegant for a philosophy book that is nearly 70 years old.
I suggest it be changed to "Critical Opinions" or, "Fan Comments," or "History's Judgments!" I'm hereby soliciting other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Reception is an event in time. One might say that this event happens continually and endlessly. This would be unconventional; a stretch for the concept and contrary to its simple definition.
Material under IM subhead "reception" is (almost ?) entirely from +50yr after the work was "received." This is a bit illogical in the most charitable view; at worst rather silly.
Note the Wikipedia case of Melville's Moby Dick: Under "Reception" is a recounting of critical opinion around the time of publication. The same can be mostly said for the Wikipedia entry on Ben Hur (1959).
The "Reception" subhead is a convention for Wikipedia -- not particularly elegant nor universally followed, nor necessarily required or appropriate.
Examples: "The critical reception of The Wizard of Oz was poor [poorly received by critics]. But critics today now regard the film as a classic."
Example: "The novel, published in 1953, was well-received by critics [at the time]." NOT "The book, published in 1953, was well-received by critics in 2014." NOR "The book was well-received by reviewers in 1953, and continues to enjoy a warm reception from critics."
And "I received the package last year.".... "I received a warm reception at Grandma's house." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Right. So all joking aside and for reasons outlined above, I propose changing title to "Critical Views" or "Critical Opinions."
Other suggestions are solicited, and/or why "Reception" is preferred for a segment without substantial content from when the book was "received?"
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Having requested this previously, I assume the answer is simply "no, not possible."
76.250.61.86 ( talk) 13:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The material under subhead doesn't conform to definition of "Reception." The subhead might be changed, to one that more accurately reflects the currently existing material to which it refers.
You believe this point is irrelevant -- and/or, you simply lack capacity and/or desire to perceive the point at all. Which is perfectly okay! Given these limitations, it would be foolish of me to remain involved in the your project -- or as you see it, to try to spoil it in any way.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:1162:C2A0:84D3:155B ( talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm pleased to have expanded this article's reference list by about 30 percent. But it remains a poorly sourced and generally weak article. Sadly, my further involvement is impossible.
Freeknowledge's basic unfamiliarity with topic -- coupled in an unfortunate manner with his all-too frequent, questionable and insistent judgments -- make him an unfit and unacceptable collaborator.
In a related matter, FK has introduced an elaborate error, revealing ignorance of what's typically among the first and primary "facts" that genuinely interested readers will encounter about the book in question. As a former contributor here, I am embarrassed and humiliated by his blunder.
Given this amply demonstrated incompetence, I urge that FK abstain from further attempts to edit the already mangled information -- and from making other "improvements." But I'm done. Woe to any who foolishly imagine that given FK's presence, such a gem as this article can be easily improved.
76.250.61.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:1162:C2A0:84D3:155B ( talk) 02:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Inadequate familiarity with subject matter to make the edits? If so, best to leave the article alone, thus avoiding still more humiliating blunders. Maybe read more Heidegger instead?
I choose not to contribute, and am very relieved to realize that the category "constructive" is irrelevant to non-contributors.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:4965:10F0:1656:CA8F ( talk) 13:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears that, for reasons not directly related to this article, FKC won't be contributing for a while. Therefore, I've taken the opportunity to correct the error he introduced.
I may also resume my efforts to extend this article's content with sourced material. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't view existing headers or the "organization," such as it is presently, as sacrosanct and will eventually make changes that I hope will be logical. I've already replaced "Reception," provisionally with "Contemporary analysis." This is because most if not all writers available as sources are more intent on analysis rather than on offering a good/bad "reception."
2600:1702:39A0:3720:C11:3FA3:A77B:17C1 (
talk)
01:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The three (presently) new headers are suggested (not verbatim) by similar structure of "Companion To IM" book of essays from which the most recently added sources are drawn.
The previous "Summary" section (content nearly all retained) was based on IM (primary source) and was/is "original research." Editor X deciding (with or without other editors) what constitutes a "Summary" of IM would be "OR" and probably inadequate. I really don't see how one would "source" a "Summary" as such.
Simply avoiding the issue seems like fair solution.
The previous "Reception" header might be revived separately. But I'm not seeing any good, handy sources and am not personally interested in the concept. To those taking on this project, I recommend "Heidegger in America" by Martin Woessner - Cambridge 2010.
Under the new "Politics" header (or in ANY version of this article) material should be added regarding objections raised by Jurgen Habermas in the 1950s regarding "inner greatness" quote. There's various material in one of the more general, current Wik. articles on Heidegger. It may or may not be advisable to simply import the stuff here.
I've removed first reference to "fascist in character." I've retained the second reference to the phrase and the "meat" of this source (previously added by me), which undercuts its own own assertion. Because of this self-abnegation, and because the assertion itself is unsupported by other current sources, it's reasonable to somewhat deemphasize, thus avoiding "undue weight."
The article has significant room for expansion and improvements. I've more than doubled the list of sources while making necessary refinements in the use of some of the few earlier sources.
I certainly hope and expect that many other editors will (soon, or eventually) take an interest in doing similar work on expanding this article.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:81B3:9548:A2B2:1B08 (
talk)
15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
From the limited material that formerly constituted the "Summary" segment:
A key quote within this material: "for metaphysics grounds an age, by giving "that age the basis upon which it is essentially formed."
It's from an essay called "World Picture" (delivered as lecture in 1938). I've added the correct attribution within the text. A reader might otherwise fairly assume it came from IM. If one simply removed it, the whole larger bit would fall apart. I really dislike deleting other people's material and have entirely avoided doing so.
But the material's relevance to IM isn't demonstrated via sources. It points up the difficulty of "editor X" offering their personal "summary" of whatever topic. Personally I wouldn't attempt such a thing via Wikipedia.
Perhaps it should be replaced with something more appropriate. 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The article claims that: Heidegger suggested the work relates to the unwritten "second half" of his 1927 magnum opus Being and Time. This is further elucidated or supported by the claim that: In an eight-sentence preface to this 1953 edition of Being and Time, Heidegger wrote that the newly available Introduction to Metaphysics would "elucidate" material contemplated for the planned, but long-abandoned second half of Being and Time.
Unfortunately, the relevant passage in Being and Time and the interpretation adopted by the Translators' introduction to introduction to Metaphysics shows that the claim is profoundly misguided.
The passage form Being and Time runs: For the elucidation of that question the reader may refer to my Einfuhrung in die Metaphysik . . . All hinges on what "that question" is supposed to mean.This is taken by the translators of introduction (in both the first and second editon of the text) to be "the question of Being"
The First edition. . . Martin Heidegger suggested that for an elucidation of the question of Being raised by this text, Second edition: . . . he suggested that for an elucidation of the question of Being raised by this text,
This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the aforementioned preface notes that
Nonetheless, its path still remains a necessary one even today, if the question of being is to move our Dasein.For the elucidation of that question . . .
The confusion might've arisen from what "its path" is supposed to refer to: The whole book First half Second half But this is irrelevant; since "of that question" maintains the same meaning in all references Διοτιμα ( talk) 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
At any rate, the preface does say pretty clearly that the "second half" of B&T is a dead letter, and if you're interested in what it might have said, go buy a copy IM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:E4FC:AEF7:3C24:78A6 ( talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:946A:79B6:7376:C0B3 ( talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A MUCH less-than-optimal (but basically OK) secondary source on "Author's Preface": https://reviews.ophen.org/2016/05/20/lee-braver-ed-division-iii-heideggers-time-unanswered-question/#_ednref6 Heidegger directs us to two quite different texts to help us better understand the (incomplete) project of Being and Time: the Basic Problems of Phenomenology and the Introduction to Metaphysics.[vi] [vi] See M Heidegger, The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans. A Hofstadter (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 1, Note 1/ GA 24, 1, Note 1 and the Author’s Preface to the Seventh German Edition of Heidegger, Being and Time.
At the risk of appearing pedantic, an in depth analysis of what "its path" and "that question" are alluding to should be undertaken. 1. Semantic: its path can refer to Being and Time First half Second half The second half is excluded; given the fact that the sentence in both the basic problems(the path it took) and the translation of Being and time by john Macquarrie & Edward Robinson (the road it has taken) are in past tense. The translation by joan is ambiguous (its path). 2. Contextual. The first half is excluded on the basis that it deals with the "Interpretation of Dasein in terms of temporality" (which was later deemed unnecessary and thus not worth repeating); rendering the sentence redundant if this is taken as the referent. . This leaves only Being and Time which deals with "the question of Being" Thus, that question (the question of Being) and not the "Interpretation of Dasein in terms of temporality" is the relation that the preface aims at alluding at. This can also be supported from the basic problems of phenomenology ; where the translator notes that Being and time as pulished, Kant and the problem of Metaphysics and the basic problems of phenomenology [with some reservations constitute] in there volumes the entire treatise which Heidegger had originally wished to call Being and Time. The introduction is a variation on the explication on the question of being and can thus relate only to Being and Time and not its second half which deals with specific questions that in the furtherance of that question... Hence, at any rate, the preface does not say pretty clearly that the "second half" if you're interested in what it might have said, go buy a copy IM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. All interesting and very unsual points! In particular, it's a valuable reminder that relying purely on primary sources (H) can result in havoc. In general, in a very "large" sense, you may well be correct, although in a more narrow and simple sense, the existing material in the article seems reasonable (and now, thanks to you well sourced).
Regardless, a more careful reading of the preface reveals I had made a very foolish (and somewhat minor) error, which I've corrected. Thank you for indirectly pointing this out !!
I've added the source to which I referred above in which the writer notes that "Heidegger directs us" (in author's preface to 7th Ed) to IM "to help us better understand the (incomplete) project of Being and Time."
I encourage you to expand the article using sourced material -- especially secondary sources.
By way of self-congratulations, I'd like to point out that as of this writing, I've added 14 (?) of the 23 reference notes for this article. Most of what I haven't added were primary sources.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:15F5:AF83:4BCD:F111 ( talk) 23:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(-edited comment, see history)
If you’d like to expand this article, please avoid excessive reliance on primary sources. The reason for this avoidance is adequately explained elsewhere -- if not already obvious.
I’ve recently added a substantial number of secondary sources to both the “ Being and Time” and “ Introduction to Metaphysics” Wikipedia articles -- and by necessity in the process, largely changed them.
Previously both articles had relied mostly on editors’ personal commentaries and explanations of selected citations from the relevant primary source. This is NOT a preferred editing model (although it’s presently followed by most or all of the other W. articles on specific H. texts.)
Also, try and limit new material here to substantive cited information that may incrementally add insight:
Or SOMETHING like that. Not always easy or successful. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:8DEF:D4A3:CCB9:6EBE ( talk) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
RE. “Presocratic” segment:
Among the section's four existing sources, three present (added) information and analysis concerning the book’s content. Groth merely applies two purportedly descriptive terms, “idiosyncratic” and “challenging.”
The mere fact that Groth holds this opinion is unenlightening. Groth may or may not be correct, but there is nothing in the current version of the article that would enable a reader to evaluate his view or its relevance.
Unless something substantive is available from Groth, I’d suggest removing the material.
Moreover, there is some evidence that Groth holds “fringe” views on Heidegger (see note 4, Miles Groth page).
"Referring to publishers, Groth complained (2004) that 'no one will touch' his own, superior personal translations (of two Heidegger essays) 'since I am not part of the inner circle of Heideggerians.' [4] Groth claims that in contrast with existing English translations, Heidegger's works [in their original language] are "quite clear and concise." "
Among all potential sources, Groth is a relatively poor choice -- because he's published nothing specifically devoted to "Introduction to Metaphysics" and isn't widely seen as a "Heidegger expert." Indeed, Groth is most widely noted as a "men's rights advocate," based apparently on his primary career as a psychology professor at Wagner College ( Staten Island).
2601:405:4A80:9E50:795A:B84A:D960:428 ( talk) 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
2601:405:4A80:9E50:8425:7459:5816:F3F6 ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
See above section "Presocratics" on Groth.
Further edits regarding Groth? Please discuss. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:5421:8822:3C56:22AD ( talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)